There is a new Clinton paid to deliver speeches—Chelsea, the former first daughter—and she is commanding as much as $75,000 per appearance.

Aides emphasized that while Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton often address trade groups and Wall Street bankers, Ms. Clinton, now 34, focuses on organizations whose goals are in line with the work of the family’s philanthropic organization, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Organizers said her star power helped sell tickets and raise money.

And unlike her parents’ talks, Ms. Clinton’s speeches “are on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and 100 percent of the fees are remitted directly to the foundation,” said her spokesman, Kamyl Bazbaz, adding that “the majority of Chelsea’s speeches are unpaid.”

Chelsea Clinton’s speaking fees all go to the Clinton Foundation. We asked you to take note of that point, because, just by the rules of the game, it’s likely that no one else will.

To our eye, this looks like a clever route into a “story” the Times no longer wants to ignore. Chelsea Clinton commands the headline today, but Chozick quickly branches off, discussing the very large speaker fees hauled in by Chelsea’s parents.

She also notes the deep concern about the way Hillary Clinton has taken speaking fees for speeches at universities. The kids are upset, she reports.

Several points are worth noting in Chozick’s news report. As we’ve explained for the past fifteen years, Chozick was required by law to promulgate this misdirection concerning the ongoing jihad against Hillary Clinton:

CHOZICK: Political rivals have said the six-figure fees make Mrs. Clinton out of touch with average working Americans. America Rising, an anti-Clinton “super PAC,” has called on the Clinton Foundation to release additional information about how much of the money is donated and how it is being used by the foundation.

Have “political rivals” been making that statement? That's certainly true to some extent, but it’s grossly misleading, It hides the fact that this jihad has mainly been an artifact of the Washington Post and certain cable multimillionaires.

Please remember the basic law: Whenever the press corps gins up a story about some disfavored pol, the story must always be attributed to that pol’s “political rivals!”

(In this case, Gloria Vanderbilt’s son thinks Clinton may have too much money. So does Diane Sawyer, who “earns” $20 million per year.)

One other part of the Chozick report is simply pathetic and sad. The analysts had to avert their gaze when the Chozick offered this:

CHOZICK: Ms. Clinton has not ruled out running for office, and her schedule provides plenty of opportunities to hone her public speaking skills. She can sometimes sound overly cerebral. During Q. and A. sessions, she casually employs words like “vituperative” and “NCD” (short for noncommunicable disease) that can befuddle audiences.

“Vituperative!” This very long word is too cerebral for the New York Times! According to Chozick, it can befuddle an audience!

In that passage, you see the low regard in which the Times seems to hold the public. Just in case you hadn’t been able to notice that problem before.

At any rate, the Times had been ignoring this topic, even as the Washington Post had marched its whole staff off to war.

At the Times, someone may have decided that stance had to change. Chelsea’s deeply troubling fees gave the Times its way in.

The way we were: Back in 1997, the establishment press corps was still in love with their favorite, General Powell.

In 1995, a string of major pundits had practically begged him to run for president against the vile Bill Clinton. Perhaps that’s why they weren’t upset by reporting like this:

ABRAMSON (11/28/97): Political figures themselves are still in demand as paid speakers, in part because they continue to bring a celebrity aura to industry conventions and corporate gatherings. Former Presidents like George Bush, and such luminaries as Gen. Colin L. Powell, still command speaking fees well into six figures. The Keppler Agency has had little trouble booking Bob Dole, known for his wit as an after-dinner speaker, or former Vice President Dan Quayle, who is making speeches to earn money as well as to increase his visibility before an expected run for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2000.

The Washington Speakers Bureau, the best-known booker of speakers in the circuit, recently added a new political star to its stable of clients, former Prime Minister John Major of Britain. Executives of the agency did not return repeated phone calls.

Was Powell “commanding fees well into six figures” seventeen years ago? We don’t know, but when he signed on as secretary of state, the Washington Post reported his healthy net worth:

MUFSON (1/18/01): Gen. Colin L. Powell has amassed a fortune of at least $27.3 million since he retired from military service seven years ago, thanks largely to speaking fees that last year alone brought in $ 6.7 million from a variety of corporations, trade associations and universities, according to his financial disclosure forms.

Capitalizing on his charisma and the reputation he built as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Persian Gulf War, Powell has been delivering an average of eight to 10 speeches a month, usually receiving $ 59,500 each, even from small colleges. The biggest fees last year were paid by financial services firms Credit Suisse Group, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., American Express Co., Investcorp and Fidelity Institutional Retirement Services, and such companies as Auto Zone Inc.—an automobile parts chain—and Coca-Cola Co. Each of those firms paid Powell more than $100,000, Powell disclosed.

A number of educational institutions also paid substantial fees to hear Powell. They included Seton Hall University, Middlesex Community College, Rochester College, College of the Ozarks, Rollins College, the University of Oklahoma, City University of New York (Powell's alma mater), Principia College, Miami University and the University of Texas at Austin.

Don't forget to adjust for inflation! Back then, no one got the students upset about the fees Powell received at those colleges. You see, Powell was a major insider favorite. He was known to be good man.

Two years later, he took a big pile of nonsense to the U.N. and they even swooned about that! When Rachel Maddow interviewed Powell in 2009, she forgot to ask the great man how that disaster happened.

In other words, none of Powell’s “political rivals” thought he might be out of touch. By way of contrast, Hillary Clinton’s “political rivals” are worried about that this year.

Clinton was attacked by the Obama folks, many of whom still dislike her. Bill Clinton was attacked by both the Democratic party establishment and the right. Nader's people never liked either Clinton. But Hillary was to the left of Obama on most issues, and despite her latest hawkish remarks intended to differentiate herself from Obama, she has been carrying out Obama's foreign policy and intelligence policies, which I think are to the right of Big Brother. It remains unclear what Hillary might do if she were (1) acting from her own agency, and (2) didn't need to show how tough she is to counteract the stereotype that a woman cannot defend the nation. A female candidate for president cannot come across as anything less than hawklike because she will not be elected otherwise. People seemed to understand that Obama couldn't be tough on certain issues because of his race. Why is it so hard to understand that Clinton similarly cannot be "soft" on certain issues because of her gender? Everyone said that Obama would do the right thing once elected. Clinton does not seem to be receiving that benefit. Why?

I encourage everyone to follow the link chomskyzinn's link. I don't think The Nation is serving plutocratic masters, but the article in question seems to support Somerby's position. It invokes every anti-Clinton smear in the book: Benghazi, 1975 rape case, Vince Foster, helpfully linking to further anti-Clinton articles in the LA Times, Fox News, and Renew America. The article quotes the Washington Post's Phillip Rucker's smear about Clinton's residence being “appointed like an ambassador’s mansion," which TDH has reminded us, it was. And then the final flourish in a link to the Post:

"On her current book tour, the former secretary of state has travelled the country by private jet as she has for many of her speaking engagements since stepping down as secretary of state last year. Her fee is said to be upwards of $200,000 per speech; the exceptions tend to be black-tie charity galas, where she collects awards and catches up with friends such as designer Oscar de la Renta and Vogue editor Anna Wintour."

I don't really have strong feelings either way about Clinton, but a hit piece is a hit piece, whether it's on Fox News or The Nation. As Somerby has repeatedly pointed out (OK, cue the "ad nauseam" complaints), once the narrative gets fixed, it will be trotted out as seen fit across the political spectrum.

Now, the Nation piece makes some perfectly valid points: that Clinton is an establishment centrist, cozy with Wall Street, and more hawkish than Obama. Those are perfectly justified critiques. But why all the cut-and-paste cheap shots from the Nation?

"Two years later, he took a big pile of nonsense to the U.N. and they even swooned about that!" BOB Today

Sure enough they swooned. Swooned so hard that one of liberalworld'smost influential press critics took time off from his usual musings about mainstream media and modern discourse to warn those not swooning to watch what they crooned, er, crowed:

"Here at THE HOWLER, we’ve never doubted that Saddam had WMDs. In fact, we’d be surprised if he didn’t. We think antiwar types set themselves up for a fall when they crow about the lack of quick discovery." BOB 4/22/2003

Of course they swooned. They believed it before that big pile was even served. Or so they said.

It was a common sense assumption. After all, Rumsfeld himself delivered the raw materials for the weapons to Saddam Hussein under orders from Ronald Reagan, so HE KNEW they were there. And the President, Vice President, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense all swore before the entire human race that Saddam had WMD.Who ya gonna believe?

KZ, perhaps stymied up to this point in finding a basis for one his lame snark attacks on TDH's current theme, once again repeats this one quote from years ago from TDH. Shows he isn't completely asleep at the switch, with his important mission of pointing out errors, hypocrisies etc by TDH- (though my question of why KZ has taken on this mission, why he thinks it's worthwhile, and doesn't he think there might be a more worthy target have never been answered).

KZ pointed a gun at Somerby's head and made him bring up in this post how horrible it was for Powell to present the "big pile" case to the UN of Saddam's possession of that which TDH never doubted he possessed.

BLOCK: Well, Hillary Clinton is really busy on the paid-speech circuit. She's been talking to conferences of everybody from private equity managers and car dealers and travel agents. How much is she making per speech - do you know? And what's her message in those speeches?CHOZICK: Well, she makes about $200,000 per speech, which is in line with what her husband brings in with his paid speeches. And she usually gives a speech about her time at the State Department. And it's kind of a generic inspirational speech about leadership. She peppers it with her own experiences, and phrases like "leadership is a team sport" and "you can't win if you don't show up." It's probably in line with other, you know, Colin Powell's speeches, and these kind of standard speeches that are given, as you said, to trade groups.BLOCK: Beyond the big money that she is pulling in, do these speeches become strategic if she does, ultimately, run for president?CHOZICK: These speeches are very smart for a couple reasons. One - as you mention - she's bringing in an incredible salary doing these speeches; but she's also speaking to tens of thousands of people, largely under the radar. There is no political rival there debating her, and it's largely an apolitical setting. But these crowds are huge. There was one in Chicago with human resource managers, that I think was 12,000 people. And if she is laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign, it's a pretty smart way to do it.

It seems fair to refer to kids being upset (facetiously, since no actual kids have objected to Clinton's speeches) since the context is UCLA and the prior uproar over speaking fees paid by universities did arise from student protests. Why is Chozick mentioning this if no kids were actually upset about it?

That was Somerby's point -- the criticisms are sourced to unnamed critics when they in fact arise from the authors of these hit pieces. No student group is quoted as protesting Hillary or Chelsea's speeches. Chozick raised that point and attributed it to "critics" instead of taking responsibility for it herself.

I was hoping Bob would get around to his promised piece trashing another Presidential legatee, Ms. Hoover. That was a piece that seemed destined to hit on Erin Burnett's wealth. Let's see if I can find one of the teases for the post yet to appear:

Let's see if the Firedoglake article about Chelsea sound like something Bob might write in that post:

"Chelsea’s personal fortune is estimated at $15 million, most earned as a consultant at McKinsey & Company and by working for Avenue Capital Investment Group as a hedge fund manager. Chelsea and her husband live in a $10.5 million condominium in Manhattan.

Chelsea is only 34 years old and has already accomplished so much. What a bright future lies ahead!"

Don't you notice a pattern in the hiring of Yale grads in the political media? Isn't that something that should be noted? Can there be an ad hominem against a newspaper -- the Supreme Court says yes. I suppose you think Skull and Bones isn't a real organization. When was the last time someone from UCLA or UCB was hired at the NY Times or Washington Post?

I'm curious to know how advancing a progressive critique of Hillary Clinton, as offered in The Nation link above, hurts progressive interests? And how exactly is Clinton at odds with plutocratic interests? These questions, rest assured, don't emerge from the gaffe culture.

Based on her campaign statements in 2008, she said she would close Guantanamo, end both wars quickly. She said she would not touch Social Security. She supported net neutrality and opposed the FISA and Patriot Act. She supported increased science research funding and the space program. She opposed NCLB. She favored all sorts of programs to benefit those with hardships and was pro-choice. The economic meltdown happened after her campaign ended but before she was appointed to Obama's cabinet. She made statements supporting investigation and regulation of Wall Street and called for help for consumers.

This is closer to progressive than Obama and more than any have done except Al Franken or Bernie Sanders or Reich. People call Clinton the tool of Plutocrats but she is much less so than Obama, the person so many so-called progressives enthusiastically supported without much attention to the content of his campaign statements.

I'm all for a progressive critique of Hillary Clinton. It's just dispiriting to see The Nation jump on board with the lazy cheap shot narrative. There are plenty of ways to critique Clinton without quoting Philip Rucker.

The Nation piece does a lot more than offer lazy cheap shots, but I think 8:34's response is compelling. IMO, that's the way to reply to progressive critiques. Namely, demonstrating the many ways that Hillary is in fact progressive. Just saying "cheap shots" doesn't cut it. And I'm a big Hillary fan.

"People call Clinton the tool of Plutocrats but she is much less so than Obama, the person so many so-called progressives enthusiastically supported without much attention to the content of his campaign statements."

Well said.

The shadowy figures who took Hillary down in 2008 are at it again. And this was all so predictable. Reason being there has never been a thorough historical accounting of what the hell happened in 2008.

We will not be seeing Rachel Maddow talking about it, nor Markos. Digby will avert her eyes once again. Duncan Black will know to keep silent.

It's happening all over again because we let it happen the first time and ended up with a 2 term unmitigated disaster.

Clinton called for a foreclosure moratorium a year before the financia, economic collapse while she still led in polls. So there was no political benefit in going to Wall St.and accusing them of pushing risky financial instruments. Sometimes, a leader with credibility with certain groups can be more effective in holding them accountable. Both the Bush administration and the Obama campaign trashed her critique and proposals. People who are now psinting her as "too cosy with WallSt." and a latter day Marie Antoinette, were silent or joined in trashing the proposals.

Yes, shadowy figures brought down Hillary. Probably the same group that bumped off JFK. You know. The CIA, the Mafia, Castro, Kruschev, LBJ, the entire "military-industrial complex," the Freemasons, the Illuminati, Skull & Bones, and the Knights Templar.

Good grief, folks, get a grip.

The 2008 race for the Democratic nomination was an extremely close race waged by two excellent candidates. One built a tremendous ground game in caucus states. The other concentrated on primary states.

One also voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. The other didn't.

Yes, yes, I know Somerby's theme is that Chris Matthews decided this election at the behest of some shadowy cabal of corporate interests.

Of course, if Senator Clinton, representing the state of New York at the time had voted against AUMF it would have stopped Bush/Cheney dead in their tracks and everything would have turned out different.

The use of a "present" vote as a protest of legislation that will pass anyway makes little sense. Why would a "no" vote not express that opposition more effectively? The only way Obama's voting record of 119 present votes makes any sense is if you consider that by voting present instead of no, he avoids taking a stand on a controversial issue that might alienate potential supporters later on. Because many of the present votes were on women's health issues that are divisive within the African American community, I believe Obama voted present in order to avoid splitting his natural constituency in upcoming elections over issues such as abortion. That is far from the admirable, principled stand Obama apologists wished to cast this action as in the 2008 primaries.

Please list these votes on women's health issues that are "divisive within the African American community."

A "present" vote in the Illinois Senate, especially on legislation that will pass anyway, is not necessarily a "protest" vote or a "no" vote in disguise. It may mean that the voter actually supports the goals of the legislation but is willing to compromise with the opposition on the topic. It may mean that the voter supports the goals of the bill but thinks the implementation is problematic. Obama ended up voting present on a bill he originally sponsored because he thought the final version contained unconstitutional language that would prompt the courts to throw it out. Present votes may be part of one party's legislative strategy. When Obama was in the the state senate, the Democrats spread present votes across their membership in response to Republican anti-abortion bills, essentially allowing them to torpedo the bills while depriving the Republicans of attack-ad material. Planned Parenthood endorsed this strategy.

I suggest you understand the politics of the branch of the legislature in question before you decide you really know what's going on.

We have the best chance in a generation for Presidential candidate coattails to pull in a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate, and make and confirm several appointments to a Supreme Court that is a travesty, and yet so-called progressives who don't think Hillary is as progressive as they would wish her to be are going to adopt Republican talking points to weaken those coattails? Because, like every other viable candidate of the modern era, she has amassed some wealth?

There sure is a lot of growing up that needs to be done. The best way to build progressive influence is to be the force that generates the quantum leap in turnout that drives Republicans into obscurity and puts the Democrats if office. If you want votes to be as important to candidates as money, i.e., to wean them away from Third Way pablum, you have to get people to vote. More people than we've seen in 50 years. Trashing the most likely candidate who will adopt different policies from those Republicans would adopt is hardly calculated to do that. All that does is reinforce the self-destructive disillusionment that keeps people away from the polls and puts Republicans in office.

TDH is dead-on about this complaint. It's up to us to figure a way to enlist enough people to make people like Philip Rucker and Krystal Ball pay a severe career price for doing right-wing propaganda instead of actual journalism.

Yeah, the world would be such a fine, wonderful place if everyone did like Urban Legend and thought and acted just like Somerby.

Unfortunately, dear child, we live in a real world where people prefer to think for themselves. And that sometimes means not fawning all over the candidates you think will lead us to the promised land.

Here's a thought for you -- if Hillary handle the ginormous "crisis" of getting embarrassing, and yes, even inapporpriate, questions thrown at her during a book tour, perhaps she isn't the right person for president.

And FYI, the last time the Democrats had the White House, both houses of Congress and a "super-majority" in the Senate was 2008.

Of course to a person with the maturity level to think he can lecture others about how they should behave two years in advance of an election, six years could very well seem like "a generation."

"... yet so-called progressives who don't think Hillary is as progressive as they would wish her to be are going to adopt Republican talking points to weaken those coattails?"

Yes, and it is also critically important to the progressive agenda that so-called progressives never miss a chance to reflexively regurgitate every republican meme about President William Jefferson Clinton, while watching monument after monument erected to Saint Ronnie.

And yet somehow, despite all these years of ganging up by both sides, and so-called progressive regurgitation of Republican memes, William Jefferson Clinton remains as one of the history's most popular ex-presidents.

Not only that, 11:15: Clinton's average approval ratings *while in office* were higher than Saint Ronnie's. A hair higher, but higher. Amazing, isn't it, how a gifted politician can overcome media bias. It helps, of course, that the majority of the public holds the media in pitifully low regard, and that the "narratives" some of us obsess over don't resonate much with actual voters.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that all those speeches given by the Clintons may contribute to keeping their ratings high by giving the public some direct experience aside from what the press dishes out? That may be why they are being attacked for their speaking activities.

The problem for the upcoming election is not with attracting members of the right to vote for a democrat, but with getting the left to stop eating its own children. This garbage being hawked by MSNBC is keeping the Obama Dems from rallying behind Hillary, now that it is her turn. It makes it seem plausible for them to abandon the overwhelming public choice in favor of some as yet unidentified other candidate who will give the election (and the store) away with both hands. That's why it matters that these RNC memes are being spewed by MSNBC stooges, right along with Fox.

The money these famous and infamous speakers are being paid should buy a lot of first rate gag writers. But then, the late-night shows make millions, and their hosts usually come off about as clever as high-school wiseacres. Fame is a racket. No wonder some many unworthies covet it.

How to restore a broken relationship and marriage ,Love Spells That Really Work Fast

My name is Mark Davis, my family and i live in NY USA.It was after seven years i got to discover that my wife was unfaithful to me.I didn't know what was going on at first but as she got deep in the affair with her new lover, i felt that our marriage was on the rocks.I notice that she no longer light up when i touch her or kiss her in her neck and her chest cos she really liked it when i did that, she also usually get naked in front of me but when she started seeing that guy she stopped it.I remember asking her if i have done anything that makes her feel irritated when i am around her then she gives silly excuses that she has been feeling stressed up and that she need space for a while.I know when you are been asked for space its usually because there is something fishy is going on.I hired a private investigator to help find out what was going on.And in a week time he brought me prove that my wife that i have lived with for seven straight year is cheating on me with her high school lover.I had picture of her walking out a of a restaurant with him and many other photo of them kissing in public like she will never be caught by someone that knows she is my wife.I asked myself, even when we had a daughter together she could this to me.That same night i showed her the pictures that i got from my private investigator.She didn't look at it before saying, that she is seeing someone and she know that i just found out about it.Then she said that she is in love with him.At that moment, i didn't know if to kill myself or to kill her but the button line is that if i was going to kill anyone it was going to be me cos i was so much in love with her to even think of thinking to hurt her.As time when on she asked for a divorce and got it and even got custody of our daughter and i was all alone by myself.For a year i tried all i could to get her back with the help of my seven year old daughter.Even at that all effect was in vain, i used the help of her friend but turned out all bad.I know most people don't believe in spell casting but believe me this was my last option and the result i most say was impressive.And i know it difficult to believe but A SPELL CASTER Dr brave really made my life much better cos he gave me my family back.He didn't ask me to pay for what he did for me all i was to do, was to provide the materials for the spell and believe that he had the power to help me.Like he said, he was going to do something that will make her reset her love and affection for me just as it has always been.My wife told me she woke up and realized that she should have never left me that i am all she needs.To make thing clear, her life with her high school lover was great before Dr brave castled the spell they had no disagreement on anything.The guy said it himself that why she broke up with him is unexplainable.Only Dr.Brave can do such a thing contact him to solve your problem with his email:bravespellcaster@gmail.com ,or kindly visit he website http://bravespellcaster.yolasite.com .CONTACT HIM NOW FOR SOLUTION TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS